The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-living state leaders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of longest-living state leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant of Lists of state leaders by age, arbitrary inclusion criteria for a list of this size, trivial cross-categorization. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But many things about state leaders are mentioned in the news. My concern is going down the trivia path. If we go that way, then how about other things mentioned n the news, e.g. number of girl friends? Would that be interesting? Encyclopedic? What is certain is that if that list is built Nano Malefico would come first, followed somewhat distantly by Slick Willie. Of course Hilary would not qualify because she was never head of state, and has had very few girl friends for all we know. But seriously an encyclopedia should not include these types of things. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Your point, but I politely disagree. You are asking: "to what end?" Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think the fine line would be "if all subjects on the list are notable according to the Wiki standards". For example, all Olympic competitors would be notable and I don't see a problem with such a list being created on the Wikipedia (it already exists here: [1] ). On the other hand, millionaires, artists, terrorists/guerilla fighters are not notable by default and those lists would be useful only in specific cases, such as oldest Olympians, Academy Award winners, Nobel prize winners, etc. Contrary to articles such as "oldest surviving [insert]", lists like this would never become empty. StjepanHR (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, those lists were examples. But by your logic then we need to create List of longest-living Olympians, List of longest-living Academy Award winners, List of longest-living Nobel prize winners, etc. I'm using WP:NOT as my base for rationale here, to delete this list. Again, where do we draw the line? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: We draw the line through these lists, and cross them out. I looked up the term junk and WP:Junk came up. It is an apt description of these lists. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these gerontological lists are interesting (to me) albeit completely unencyclopedic. But I am struggling with the interest in things like Constantine Kollias being somewhere between 70th-90th longest lived state leader. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More